Skip to main content

Site Survey Shows 60 Percent Think Free Will Exists. Read Why

We are responsible for our own actions. Of course we are. Sure about that? “I think I can?” “I think I can’t?” All philosophizing aside, the assumption that we have free will has been called into question by research that suggests our brains are deciding for us before we become conscious of the decisions streamed [...]

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


We are responsible for our own actions. Of course we are.

Sure about that?

"I think I can?"


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"I think I can't?"

All philosophizing aside, the assumption that we have free will has been called into question by research that suggests our brains are deciding for us before we become conscious of the decisions streamed down from the cerebral cortex.

An article in the January issue of Scientific American by philosopher Eddy Nahmias addressed this debate, coming to the conclusion that we are endowed with free will, even if, at times, a lot of mental processing is going on before we become conscious of it.

The article—and the intrinsic fascination with this question—prompted us to run a survey of visitors to our site, asking their opinions on this philosophical perennial, now being debated anew because of the brain scans that question free will’s existence.

The results are now in. In agreement with Nahmias, most of the 4,672 responses registered from Dec 20th through Jan. 14th gave a thumbs up to free will. Specifically, the breakdown has 59 percent endorsing the idea that free will exists and 41 percent voting nay.

Responders hailed from as far afield as France, Australia, New Zealand, Kuwait, Israel, the Philippines, India, a demonstration of the globe-spanning appeal of a question that Socrates pondered.

A few explanations for the reasons people voted yes or no:

Yes, Portland, Oregon: The unconscious influences our thinking processes, but the conscious brain ultimately has the last word. We often change our minds at the last moment due to outside influences, such as the opinions of other people, despite the previous influence of the subconscious, which generally works more slowly. Also, why would we have consciousness if we were completely controlled by our subconscious?

No, Sequim, Washington: I'm a retired Los Angeles Policewoman. I'm convinced that had not my sub-conscious detected and acted instantly in several dangerous situations both on and off the job, I'd be fertilizing plants with my ashes.

Yes, Auckland, New Zealand: "Random" behavior on the quantum level "may" be the result of individual choices. Entangled systems "may" also make individual choices. Human beings and sentient organisms "may" be very large entangled systems making individual choices.

No, Pennington, Virginia: What we do is the product of our biological state at the moment and the sum total of our experiences as these bear on the issue at hand.

Yes, Livermore, California: I believe we have both. I believe we can exercise control over our subconscious selves with our conscious will, but often we rely on the underlying subconscious to control our basic daily activities. I do not believe that just because brain activity seems to indicate activity just prior to conscious thought, this means something else besides our consciousness is driving our actions.

No, Fairbault, Minnesota: Until we understand the neurochemical and neuron connections of the brain, the answer remains hidden. From what we know, I think the brain has tricked us into believing we have free will.

Yes, Liverpool, England: Because I freely chose to turn on my laptop and do this survey.

No, Boise, Idaho: Because the 'self' is not separate from the body but a product of it. When the body fails, the 'self' can be completely lost such as in Alzheimer's and schizophrenia. Because we are a product of biology we cannot also be in control of it. Free will is an illusion of the ego.

Yes, Omaha, Nebraska: We think. We discuss ethical behavior, create laws, and hold people accountable for their behaviors. If we did not believe in free will none of those actions would happen.

No, Warsaw, Poland: Our thoughts and actions are determined by our brains' neural activity, variances in brain structure, our biochemistry, hormone levels, vitamin levels, our life experiences and events, even our evolutionary past, etc.

Image Source: Nicholas Bisceglia, Scientific American

Gary Stix, Scientific American's neuroscience and psychology editor, commissions, edits and reports on emerging advances and technologies that have propelled brain science to the forefront of the biological sciences. Developments chronicled in dozens of cover stories, feature articles and news stories, document groundbreaking neuroimaging techniques that reveal what happens in the brain while you are immersed in thought; the arrival of brain implants that alleviate mood disorders like depression; lab-made brains; psychological resilience; meditation; the intricacies of sleep; the new era for psychedelic drugs and artificial intelligence and growing insights leading to an understanding of our conscious selves. Before taking over the neuroscience beat, Stix, as Scientific American's special projects editor, oversaw the magazine's annual single-topic special issues, conceiving of and producing issues on Einstein, Darwin, climate change, nanotechnology and the nature of time. The issue he edited on time won a National Magazine Award. Besides mind and brain coverage, Stix has edited or written cover stories on Wall Street quants, building the world's tallest building, Olympic training methods, molecular electronics, what makes us human and the things you should and should not eat. Stix started a monthly column, Working Knowledge, that gave the reader a peek at the design and function of common technologies, from polygraph machines to Velcro. It eventually became the magazine's Graphic Science column. He also initiated a column on patents and intellectual property and another on the genesis of the ingenious ideas underlying new technologies in fields like electronics and biotechnology. Stix is the author with his wife, Miriam Lacob, of a technology primer called Who Gives a Gigabyte: A Survival Guide to the Technologically Perplexed (John Wiley & Sons, 1999).

More by Gary Stix